Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of robbery. The district court found Defendant to be a habitual criminal and sentenced her to consecutive prison terms of thirty to fifty years on each robbery count. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in overruling Defendant’s motion to suppress cell phone records acquired by the State from Defendant’s service provider; (2) the district court did not err in admitting photographs of a gruesome nature; (3) the district court did not err in overruling Defendant’s motion for new trial; (4) the evidence at trial was sufficient to support Defendant’s convictions; and (5) the district court did not err in finding Defendant to be a habitual criminal. View "State v. Jenkins" on Justia Law

In case No. CR11-12 Defendant was convicted and sentenced for the crime of theft by receiving stolen property. In case No. CR11-29, Defendant was convicted and sentenced with burglary and habitual criminal. Defendant petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that the sentence imposed for habitual criminal was a void sentence. The district court granted the writ of habeas corpus, concluding that Defendant was being held on a void sentence. As of the date of this opinion, Defendant remained in the custody of the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services because he was unable to meet the conditions of his bond imposed by the district court. The Director of the Department appealed. The Supreme Court sustained Defendant’s motion for summary affirmance and directed that Defendant be released from custody, holding that Defendant was being unlawfully imprisoned on a void sentence and was entitled to be released and discharged forthwith. View "Meyer v. Frakes" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Raymond Frank Gonzales, Jr. (Defendant) was convicted of first degree murder and use of a firearm to commit a felony in connection with the death of Bonnie Baker. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the prosecutor’s statements during closing arguments did not constitute misconduct, and, in any event, the statements at issue in this appeal were not unfairly prejudicial; (2) the trial court did not err in instructing the jury on the definition of sudden quarrel or first degree murder; and (3) the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict. View "State v. Gonzales" on Justia Law

In a direct appeal, Tracy Parnell challenged his convictions by jury of first degree murder, attempted first degree murder, two counts of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a weapon by a prohibited person. His two primary arguments attacked denials of his motions to continue the trial and for a new trial. These arguments were premised upon untimely disclosures of opinions of a cellular analyst and relied on "Brady v. Maryland," and a discovery statute. He also argued the trial court erred: (1) in admitting his threats toward one of the victims were admitted in evidence by error; (2) his requested instruction on accomplice testimony was refused; and (3) his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. Finding no merit in his arguments, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Nebraska v. Parnell" on Justia Law

A police officer discovered Bruce Rask asleep in the cab of his running pickup truck. Rask was ultimately charged with several offenses including driving under the influence (third offense). A jury later found him guilty, and on appeal, the district court affirmed. Rask appealed, raising six points of error at trial. Finding no merit to any of these claims, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Nebraska v. Rask" on Justia Law

In 1984, the State charged Defendant with the murder of his grandmother for hiring her killing. After a stipulated bench trial, the district court found Defendant guilty of second degree murder. The district court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed on direct appeal. In 2012, Defendant filed a motion for postconviction relief, alleging, inter alia, ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and prejudicial conduct by the trial judge. The district court denied the motion after a limited evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for postconviction relief. View "State v. Saylor" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of murder in the first degree, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court committed several errors in its evidentiary rulings and that there was insufficient evidence to support her convictions because of a lack of physical evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s assignments of error relating to the district court’s evidentiary rulings were without merit; and (2) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s convictions. View "State v. Jenkins" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, Defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance and sentenced to probation. On appeal, Defendant challenged the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress and in finding sufficient evidence to convict him. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in overruling Defendant’s motion to suppress, as the totality of the circumstances demonstrated that Defendant’s interaction with law enforcement was a tier-one police-citizen encounter, that Defendant consented to the search, and that the officer discontinued the search after Defendant’s withdrew his consent; and (2) the evidence was sufficient to convict Defendant. View "State v. Milos" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and use of a weapon to commit a felony. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentences on appeal. Defendant subsequently filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief, generally alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The district court denied Defendant’s motion for postconviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err when it found there was no merit to each of Defendant’s claims and denied his motion for postconviction relief without granting an evidentiary hearing. View "State v. Starks" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of attempted second degree murder, first degree assault, and use of a weapon to commit a felony. The Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant was entitled to a new trial at which the jury could be instructed on the distinction between second degree murder and voluntary sudden quarrel manslaughter. The district court subsequently granted Defendant’s motion for new counsel. Defendant then pled no contest to the amended charge of attempted voluntary manslaughter. Defendant subsequently filed a motion for postconviction relief, alleging several claims of error. The district court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing despite Defendant’s claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; (2) Defendant’s allegation that the district court erred in hearing his claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel at the hearing on his motion for new counsel prior to his motion for postconviction relief had no merit; and (3) there was no plain error. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law